C.J.E., APPELLANT,
v.
S.D.A., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that child support calculations must include a parent's child care expenses incurred due to employment or education.
The mother appealed a final judgment of paternity, arguing the trial court erred by not factoring her child care expenses into the child support calcu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Child Care Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
C.J.E., the mother, appeals a final judgment of paternity. She argues that the trial court erred by calculating child support without factoring in her child care expenses. We agree and reverse.
Child support in paternity actions is determined according to the guidelines in chapter 61, Florida Statutes. See § 742.031(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) (requiring court in paternity action to set child support pursuant to section 61.30). When calculating the basic child support obligation, the court is required to include seventy-five percent of a parent’s child care costs incurred “due to employment, job search, or education calculated to result in employment or to enhance income of current employment.” § 61.30(7), Fla. Stat. (2008). In this case, the court ordered S.D.A., the father, to pay child support retroactive to the child’s birth. But the court failed to include the mother’s child care costs when it determined the amount of child support.
Because this error is apparent on the face of the final judgment, we may correct it even though the record on appeal lacks *230both a transcript and a statement of the evidence prepared under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4). See Wilcox v. Munoz, 35 So.3d 136, 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing child support award, even in the absence of a transcript, when final judgment lacked factual findings on parties’ incomes, and noting error apparent on the face of the judgment in the trial court’s failure to properly factor in child care costs). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the court to recalculate child support after including the child care costs incurred by the mother. See Waters v. Bland, 935 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (reversing child support award and remanding for trial court to address child care costs).
Reversed and remanded.
VILLANTI and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Irene Banks v. Randy Banks, 168 So. 3d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…d DCA 2004); Chirino v. Chirino, 710 So. 2d 696, 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). However, the absence of a transcript and a statement of the evidence does not preclude reversal where an error of law is apparent on the face of the judgment. C.J.E. v. S.D.A., 79 So. 3d 229, 229-30 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Chirino, 710 So. 2d at 697. Therefore, we must limit our consideration of the Wife’s appellate arguments to errors appearing on the face of the amended final judgment. B. The Failure to Award Permanent Alimony The trial…
-
Quinn v. Stoyna Quinn, 169 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…la. 1st DCA 1979)). The right to child support belongs to the child, and it cannot be waived by parents. Id. Wilcox, 35 So. 3d at 138 (distinguishing Esaw and declining to extend it to cases involving awards of child support); see C.J.E. v. S.D.A., 79 So. 3d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (reversing and remanding for the court to recalculate child support where error was apparent on the face of the judgment).- Mr. Quinn argues that the child support award is erroneous because it is not calculated based on the numb…
Authorities Cited
- Wilcox v. Munoz, 35 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Waters v. Bland, 935 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)